As always there are two sides of a story. That what the oppressors want their citizens to believe to gather moral support and that what the suppressed want their citizens to know so they resist.
By putting those two sides together, only then we can approximate truth.
Probably the responsibility to do the comparison yourself. The article doesn't claim to present a balanced view or "the truth" (which propaganda would), it is clear about showing one perspective. There is more than enough documentation for the other perspective available, as is material contrasting the two. It would be bad if this article stood alone as the only source of information available, but it doesn't.
You are right. But I'm not saying that only viewpoint that I believe in should be presented: both should be presented side-by-side, at least.
Imagine the same article with Third Reich, Mao or Cuban Castro regime. Would reading the thoughts and commentary by wermacht photographers, praising the fuhrer and describing the Normandy landing as "foreign invasion", without any neutral commentary, at least, not raise any questions or issues with you?
>You are right. But I'm not saying that only viewpoint that I believe in should be presented: both should be presented side-by-side, at least.
I'm pretty sure most everyone is well aware of the "other side" while looking at this one. Humans aren't so stupid that they can't compare what they already know to new information.
But the captions in the article don't actually praise the Viet Cong leadership, and even the Nazi leadership didn't believe that Normandy was German territory. It's not like there's anything remotely untrue about the observations that the ARVN wasn't much of a fighting force without US support and Agent Orange wasn't particularly friendly on the local wildlife.
I've seen coverage of the war from a skewed pro-Viet Cong propaganda perspective. This isn't that.
> I've seen coverage of the war from a skewed pro-Viet Cong propaganda perspective. This isn't that.
After reading several replies like this one I finally understand why I'm being downvoted.
See, you assume that the article is in english, the audience is supposed to be from US, and the context is US culture. This is no longer true in modern world.
Personally, most of the information I was fed about Vietnam war throughout my life was the bullshit of Soviet and post-Soviet anti-US propaganda, so seeing this shit once again without any context seems sick. I guess a person from US, who have been mostly subjected to the other perspective, wouldn't understand it.
> After reading several replies like this one I finally understand why I'm being downvoted...See, you assume that the article is in english, the audience is supposed to be from US, and the context is US culture
I'm not American, and I downvoted you for taking away from the discussion. What were you expecting from a link that reads "Unseen images of the war from the winning side"? Did you expect the Viet Cong to lack conviction in their beliefs?
> Personally, most of the information I was fed about Vietnam war throughout my life was the bullshit of Soviet and post-Soviet anti-US propaganda, so seeing this shit once again without any context seems sick.I guess a person from US, who have been mostly subjected to the other perspective, wouldn't understand it.
Speaking as a person born in a former colony, what I find sick is the pro-imperialist mindset that assumes being a western/american puppet state is better than getting communist benefactors in the fight for self-determination. Liberty or Death.
> Speaking as a person born in a former colony, what I find sick is the pro-imperialist mindset that assumes being a western/american puppet state is better than getting communist benefactors in the fight for self-determination. Liberty or Death.
So, you would prefer to live in a North Korea to the South?
> So, you would prefer to live in a North Korea to the South?
1. That's a false dichotomy -those are not the only options. The unstated implication (western-style democracy = success, communism = failure) is also wrong because there are many other orthogonal dimensions at play
2. Is South Korea a puppet state or a colony?
3. I think what you are really asking me is if I would rather be Fed or Free. There is no correct answer, but I would prefer both. How about you; would you rather be oppressed and flourishing or free and impoverished?
> 1. That's a false dichotomy -those are not the only options. The unstated implication (western-style democracy = success, communism = failure) is also wrong because there are many other orthogonal dimensions at play
These are typical options though. A lot of historical examples show this pattern throughout 20th century.
Remember, how originally, words "1st world" and "2nd world" were supposed to mean "capitalist" and "communist", and ended up meaning "great places to live" and "not so good"?
> 2. Is South Korea a puppet state or a colony?
It may not have been formally a colony, but it's certainly a country under enormous political influence of western world in US in particular — just like post-WWII Japan and Western Germany. I don't think that formal status matters as much.
> 3. I think what you are really asking me is if I would rather be Fed or Free. There is no correct answer, but I would prefer both. How about you; would you rather be oppressed and flourishing or free and impoverished?
This is a false dichotomy, because "freedom" is good first and foremost because free societies are fed. Freedom is just a more effective society organization.
But a lot of former colonies never actually had this choice; instead, their struggle for "freedom" from western capitalism typically ended up in communist dictatorships in the USSR's sphere of influence. It's like the "free Palestine" guys, who know really well what they're fighting against, but refuse to open their eyes on what are they're fighting for.
However, in the vast majority of cases, only the US perspective is given, and no one complains then.
There is a lot more documentation about the Vietnam war that is from the US' perspective than from Viet Cong. Which is precisely what makes this article interesting. And it's just one article, and pretty short too.
(Also compare with the US wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, or, more recently, the war on ISIL? How many articles tell ISIS' perspective?)
By putting those two sides together, only then we can approximate truth.